Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18
Like Tree21Likes

Thread: PAYDAY WITHOUT PAY WHITE HOUSE LAYS GROUNDWORK TO DECLARE EMERGENCY.. BUCHANAN: Do it

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #11
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Do you have a link source for that one?
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #12
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post
    Do you have a link source for that one?
    I'm not linking you to the limited contents of my brain pan. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 was a huge piece of legislation that many of us followed very closely.
    However, if there is something your questioning, I'm sure you or I can find the information. What is it exactly that you don't believe?



    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #13
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Furthermore, there was an amendment in 2007 to the Secure Fence Act of 2006 that changed and reduced the original requirements. We have former Secretary of DHS, Micheal Chertoff, and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, both Republicans, to thank for watering down the original fence act.
    It's my recollection that the amendment gave the Secretary of DHS authority to use different types of fencing and barriers to better suit the terrain and situation. That was not "watering it down" or reducing it. That was the flexibility to use what was needed for specific locations, terrains, and circumstances. Makes sense to me. Why do you treat that as a negative? If you need a 30 foot pedestrian wall instead of cross-beams to prevent vehicles, why would you have a problem with building the better structure to fit the circumstance without having to go back to Congress for approval of the change?

    This Amendment may actually give Trump the authority to build his picket fence design without having to secure approval from Congress to do so. Very valuable Amendment seems to me.
    Last edited by Judy; 01-14-2019 at 12:32 PM.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  4. #14
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post
    It's my recollection that the amendment gave the Secretary of DHS authority to use different types of fencing and barriers to better suit the terrain and situation. That was not "watering it down" or reducing it. That was the flexibility to use what was needed for specific locations, terrains, and circumstances. Makes sense to me. Why do you treat that as a negative? If you need a 30 foot pedestrian wall instead of cross-beams to prevent vehicles, why would you have a problem with building the better structure to fit the circumstance without having to go back to Congress for approval of the change?

    This Amendment nay actually give Trump the authority to build his picket fence design without having to secure approval from Congress to do so. Very valuable Amendment seems to me.
    You're seriously mistaken if you don't think the 2007 amendment didn't water down the Secure Fence Act of 2006!

    Omnibus Bill Includes Border Fence-Gutting Amendment

    Buried On Page 123 of Division E, Hutchison Amendment Removes Double-Layer Fence Requirement, Gives DHS Discretion

    December 17, 2007 11:46 AM Eastern Standard Time
    MAXWELL, Iowa--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The omnibus Consolidated Appropriations bill includes a little-known provision that guts the major provisions of the Secure Fence Act of 2006. This provision -- buried on page 123 of Division E of the Consolidated Appropriations Act - contradicts the Secure Fence Act’s specific mandate of a double-layer fence covering 854 miles of the U.S-Mexico border.

    “In fact, DHS would not be required to build fencing in any particular location -- and the double-layer mandate is totally gone.”
    Tweet this

    Grassfire.org has been tracking this provision which was first introduced quietly by Sen. Hutchison this summer as S.Amdt. 2466 to H.R. 2368 (the DHS appropriations bill). “The Hutchison amendment gives DHS virtually total discretion over how and where the fence is built,” says Grassfire.org President Steve Elliott. “In fact, DHS would not be required to build fencing in any particular location -- and the double-layer mandate is totally gone.”
    In its report on the “Fence Funding Hoax,” Grassfire has chronicled how the plan to gut the Secure Fence Act was actually hatched the day the bill passed the Senate in 2006. (View that report.) “I find it odd that such an important amendment which releases DHS from specific requirements of an existing law would be passed by a simple voice vote in the Senate and then buried in the massive omnibus bill,” says Elliott. “The American people reasonably expect that a double-layer fence will be built but Congress has always had other plans. This amendment should be stripped from the final omnibus bill.”

    Omnibus Appropriations Bill Guts Fencing, Other Immigration-Related revisions

    From FAIR:


    This week, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) came under increasing pressure for her amendment to the FY08 Omnibus Appropriations Bill (H.R.2764) that grants the Department of Homeland Security significant discretion regarding the border fence (Houston Chronicle, January 12, 200. Approximately 700 miles of two-layered fencing was mandated by the Secure Fence Act of 2006, but since the legislation was signed into law, critics have been looking for opportunities to undermine it. Senator Hutchison as early as January 2007 expressed “deep skepticism” about the fence (Dallas Morning News, January 10, 2007) and during the course of the past year successfully offered several amendments that required Homeland Security to increase consultation with border communities and gave the Department more discretion in building the fence. None of the bills to which these amendments were attached passed, however, until the Omnibus Appropriations legislation was enacted in December.
    Border security advocates claim the Hutchison amendment dismantles the Secure Fence Act. The amendment: (1) eliminates the requirement for two-layered fencing; (2) deletes the specific locations for fencing set out in statute and replaces them with language that gives Homeland Security broad discretion in determining where the fencing will be built; and (3) has a sweeping consultation requirement that requires Homeland Security to consult with federal, state, and local agencies, as well as Indian tribes and “property owners.”
    Finally the Hutchison amendment is particularly troubling to fence advocates because of a paragraph that some argue calls into doubt the construction of any fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. That language provides that notwithstanding the requirement that Homeland Securityconstruct 700 miles of fencing along the southwest border, “[N]othing in this paragraph shall require the Secretary of Homeland Security to install fencing, physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors in a particular location along an international border of the United States, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such location” (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Division E, § 564(a)(2)(B)(ii) [internal paragraph (D)]).


    Already, opponents of the border fence are gearing up for a lawsuit based on Hutchison’s amendment. Peter Schey, executive director of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, an organization supporting several opponents of the fence, sent Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff a letter on Monday threatening legal action to prevent any further fence construction. Schey’s principal claim is that the Secretary must restart the process of building the fence in order to consult with affected parties as required by the Hutchison amendment (Dallas Morning News, January 9, 200.


    Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA), one of the authors of the Secure Fence Act, told reporters Friday that the Texas Senator’s change was “either a blatant oversight or a deliberate attempt to disregard the border security of our country” (United Press International, January 11, 200. In response to her critics, Senator Hutchison said, “I feel like this has been a little blown out of proportion” (Houston Chronicle, January 12, 200. Hutchison insists her measure in no way jeopardizes the fence construction once due to get under way in Texas in the spring (Id.).
    https://ncvoiceblog.wordpress.com/20...ted-revisions/

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  5. #15
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,717
    Yes, Kay Bailey Hutchinson was a Republican and like I implied earlier her and Secretary Chertoff completely undermined the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Of course the Obama administration didn't waste anytime taking advantage of Hutchinson's amendment to the Secure Fence Act.

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  6. #16
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Under the Amendment, the Secretary of DHS, has the authority to build what they think is best for the location and circumstance. I agreed with it then, and I still do. The Amendment is still there, it's still the law, the Secretary can build what they want where they want under existing law, as amended. So Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and the DemoQuacks are dead wrong and are violating the Secure Fence Act of 2006, as amended in 2007, claiming it is "immoral". I posted the other day that the President needs to pull out that legislation and study it, because he already has the authority to build what he wants where he wants under existing law and thus can pull unspent money from wherever he can find it to pay for it without a national emergency.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  7. #17
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post
    Under the Amendment, the Secretary of DHS, has the authority to build what they think is best for the location and circumstance. I agreed with it then, and I still do. The Amendment is still there, it's still the law, the Secretary can build what they want where they want under existing law, as amended. So Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and the DemoQuacks are dead wrong and are violating the Secure Fence Act of 2006, as amended in 2007, claiming it is "immoral". I posted the other day that the President needs to pull out that legislation and study it, because he already has the authority to build what he wants where he wants under existing law and thus can pull unspent money from wherever he can find it to pay for it without a national emergency.
    You never disappoint. Just leave it to you to try and spin a serious negative into a plus for Trump. Absolutely amazing.

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  8. #18
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    It's a plus for any President who wants to secure the border with fences/walls/barriers.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Senators, White House lay groundwork for Dreamers deal
    By Motivated in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-20-2017, 01:44 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-04-2017, 12:37 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-24-2017, 08:04 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-11-2014, 09:46 AM
  5. Palin lays groundwork for 2012 presidential bid
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-08-2009, 10:36 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •